Assessment of EoI:273



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 273 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score

Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3.6666667/5

Evidence A: Forest remains relatively intact though unsustainable hunting has already resulted in the lost of many large bodied wildlife species. This forest is located between several KBAs

Evidence B:The EOI details the biodiversity importance of the area.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.3333333/2

Evidence A: Viewed the map

Evidence B:Typically carbon storage for such areas is > 150 CtHa


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: NA/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: NA/5

Evidence A: In Cameroon all rights are effectively vested in the state. Limited rights are theoretically devolved to municipalities. Govt theoretically recognizes IPLCs customary rights but these are not respected or protected, Concessionary rights are granted to private sector companies

Evidence B:The EOI details the joint management of the area


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: It is vaguely described in the text

Evidence B:Again - the EOI details the importance of the area to the Baka communities.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3.3333333/5

Evidence A: Potential allocation of logging concessions and an iron ore mine - could undermine IPLC access to forest resources

Evidence B:As with all such area there are local threats from over hunting and subsistence extraction, but the population density is relatively how at the moment. Real threats come from commercial demands and the overexploitation for timber, mineral resources and conversion to commercial agriculture.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:NA


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: Hard one to score for Cameroon, because though they theoretically recognize IPLC rights it is municipalities not IPLCs that have management rights.

Evidence B:NA


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: No. There are community forestry initiatives but the benefits accrue to local authorities not IPLCs. There is also safari hunting in the area but no indication that this benefits IPLCs

Evidence B:NA


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: NA/2 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: Vague indication that this project is linked to REDD+ opportunities

Evidence B:NA



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 9/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 13/30

Average Total Score: 13/30



Performance of EoI 273 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)

Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: Awful. Focus more on farmers and local authorities than IPs.

Evidence B:NA


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: This seems to be all about developing management plans, monitoring plans with nothing about an FPIC process and no actions to strengthen IPLCs territorial governance capacity and power to abate the threats that are largely external to the IPLCs

Evidence B:NA


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: Making plans will do nothing to abate the current threats. Particularly given the current legal status of IPLCs in Cameroon

Evidence B:NA


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: The budget has nothing to do with it. The activities are not going to make any difference and do not directly address IP issues or concerns and not once do they mention compliance with FPIC

Evidence B:NA


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:NA


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: NA/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: NA/5

Evidence A: None provided

Evidence B:NA


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: Totally vague

Evidence B:NA


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: Nope

Evidence B:NA


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: No because the Govt is focused only on state and civil society. And this project does nothing to advance IPLC engagement in forest management decisions at the national level

Evidence B:NA


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: NA/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: NA/3

Evidence A: Vague, arm waving about gender. And focused on farming not IP livelihood practices

Evidence B:NA


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: NA/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: NA/5

Evidence A: None demonstrated

Evidence B:NA



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 2/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 12/40

Average Total Score: 9/40



Performance of EoI 273 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)

Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: NA/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: NA/6

Evidence A: No this is no IPLC led

Evidence B:NA


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: NA/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: NA/6

Evidence A: None for IPs and no IP partners noted.

Evidence B:NA


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: NA/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: NA/5

Evidence A: None defined in question 21

Evidence B:NA


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 1.6666667/5

Evidence A: No skills in working respectfully with IPs and no skills in FPIC

Evidence B:NA


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2.6666667/6

Evidence A: The have managed other $500K level grants but admitted (q26) that their reports and financial statements are “often incomplete or delivered late”

Evidence B:NA


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: NA/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: Not that I could determine

Evidence B:NA



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 6/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 9/30

Average Total Score: 9/30



Performance of EoI 273 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)